← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5498/2015dismissed

Imran Khan v. The State Of Bihar

2015-02-10Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5498 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -110 Year- 2014 Thana -DUMARIA District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Imran Khan son of Quayum Khan resident of Dumaria, P.S. Dumaria, District - Gaya ( Bihar ) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Gheyasuddin Khan Nizamul, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 10-02-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Dumaria P.S. Case No. 110 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons assaulted Ajay Kumar Gupta and Manoj Kumar Gupta while they were going to attain the marriage. Nasim Khan and Shamshar @ Karu assaulted Ajay Prasad Gupta with iron rod. Sabbu and Imran Khan (the petitioner) are alleged to have assaulted Manoj Kumar Gupta with hockey sticks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Manoj Kumar Gupta got two simple injuries and one complain of pain in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5498 of 2015 (2) dt.10-02-2015 abdomen and chest. The injuries are simple. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

It appears from the perusal of record that the petitioner and others assaulted Manoj Kumar Gupta and Ajay Kumar Gupta. The petitioner is alleged to have assaulted Manoj Kumar Gupta with hockey stick. Of course, simple injury is found on the person of Manoj Kumar Gupta, but the case appears to a pure case of hooliganism.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T